Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Questioning Underway In First Public Impeachment Hearing; Bill Taylor: Told Sondland That Withholding Aid To Ukraine For Help With A Political Campaign Was "Crazy"; Bill Taylor: Sondland Told Me "Everything", Including Security Aid, Depended On Zelensky Publicly Announcing Investigations; Bill Taylor: Sondland Said Trump Cared More About Investigations Of Biden Than About Ukraine. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired November 13, 2019 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00]

TAYLOR: And by that he clearly meant that President Trump was thinking about, or had in front of him the -- the possibility of providing security assistance to Ukraine, it was similar to writing a check to a -- someone who you were (ph) about to send.

He used -- he used that analogy, very clearly, to indicate that this would be -- this would require something. If that person owed him something, before he signed the check he wanted to get that -- get whatever he was owed paid back to him. And Ambassador Volker used very similar language about a week later, which indicates to me that they had that conversation as well.

GOLDMAN: Did Ukraine owe anything to the United States?

TAYLOR: Mr. Goldman, they didn't. They owed appreciation for the support, and they -- they were getting support and they appreciated that. But there was not -- there was not -- there was nothing owed to President Trump on that.

GOLDMAN: But, you understood the upshot of this comment, given -- made by both Ambassador Sondland and Ambassador Volker, to be that President Trump believed that Ukraine owed him something personally. Is that accurate?

TAYLOR: It's hard to understand, but there was a feeling on -- by President Trump that he -- and this came out in the -- in the transcript -- I'm sorry, this came out in the discussion with the inaugural delegation, when they came back to have a conversation with President Trump on May 23rd, that he had a -- he had a feeling of having been wronged by the Ukrainians. And so, this was something that he thought they owed him to fix that wrong.

GOLDMAN: Right, but what he -- what he was talking about, as you understood it, because in the context of the conversation is that what he owed him were these investigations that he wanted. Is that right?

TAYLOR: That -- that would have been to fix the wrong, exactly.

GOLDMAN: And those investigations into the 2016 election and Biden and Burisma?

TAYLOR: That's correct.

GOLDMAN: Now, during this early period in September, we've talked a little bit about the fact that you continually heard that the president was repeatedly saying that there was no quid pro quo, is that right?

TAYLOR: That's correct.

GOLDMAN: And he still says that repeatedly today. But regardless of what you call it, whether it's a quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, abuse of power of the Office of the Presidency, the fact of the matter, as you understood it, is that security assistance and the White House meeting were not going to be provided unless Ukraine initiated these two investigations what would benefit Donald Trump's reelection. Is that what you understood the facts the to be?

TAYLOR: Mr. Goldman, what I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people. And in this case it was what I heard from Ambassador Sondland. He described the conditions for the security assistance and the White House meeting in -- in those terms. That is, that dependent upon, conditioned on pursuing these investigations.

GOLDMAN: And you heard that from Ambassador Sondland himself, correct?

TAYLOR: Correct.

GOLDMAN: And you also heard a similar story from Mr. Morrison as well, is that right?

TAYLOR: Who also talked to Ambassador Sondland about the conversations that he had in Warsaw with Ukrainians.

GOLDMAN: And what Mr. Morrison recounted to you was substantially similar to what Mr. Sondland recounted to you, right?

TAYLOR: Yes.

GOLDMAN: And so, regardless of what Ukrainians may say now, now that everything is out in the public and we're here in this public hearing, that they felt no pressure from President Trump, it was your clear understanding, was it not, that in early September, when the pressure campaign was still secret, that the Ukrainians believed that they needed to announce these public investigations, is that right?

TAYLOR: Mr. Goldman, I know that the Ukrainians were very concerned about the security assistance, and I know that they were prepared or preparing to do -- to make a public statement that is with a CNN interview, that that was being planned. Those are the two pieces that I know.

GOLDMAN: And that CNN interview was to announce these investigations as you understood it, right?

TAYLOR: That was the implication. That was certainly the implication. GOLDMAN: We've been focused a lot on the September timeframe, but I want to go back two months, to July, before the July 25th call. And you testified, Ambassador Taylor, in your -- your opening statement that it was in the middle of July when you understood that the White House meeting was first a condition on these investigations. Is that -- is that accurate?

[12:05:00] TAYLOR: Yes. We were preparing -- and I agree, that the White House meeting was going to be an important step in U.S.- Ukrainian relations. So, in -- in June and in early July attempts to work out a way to get that meeting included a phone call. And so, there were several conversations about how to have this phone call, that eventually happened on July 25th.

GOLDMAN: And you described in your opening statement, a -- a July 10th White House meeting with a number of officials, where Ambassador Bolton used the term that something was a drug deal. What did you understand him to mean in hearing that he said that -- used this term drug deal?

TAYLOR: Mr. Goldman, I don't know. I don't know what Ambassador Bolton had in mind.

GOLDMAN: And was that in reference to a discussion in that meeting related to the White House meeting that President Zelensky wanted in connection to the investigations?

TAYLOR: The context of that comment was the discussion that Mr. Danilov (ph), who was Mr. Bolton's counterpart, Ukrainian counterpart, his National Security Advisor, had had with Mr. Bolton, and that conversation was very substantive up until the point where the White House meeting was raised and Mr. Ambassador Sondland intervened to talk about the investigations.

It was at that point that Ambassador Bolton ceased the meeting, closed the meeting, finished the meeting and told his staff to report this meeting to the lawyers, and he also later then indicated to Fiona Hill, who was also participant on NSC staff, that he -- he, Ambassador Bolton, didn't want to be associated with this drug deal.

So it was -- the implication was, it was the -- the -- the domestic politics that was being cooked up.

GOLDMAN: And, did Ambassador Sondland say this in front of the Ukrainian officials, to your understanding?

TAYLOR: Ambassador Sondland, in the meeting where Ambassador Bolton was having the conversation with his counterpart, raised the issue of investigations being important to come before the White House meeting that had just been raised.

GOLDMAN: And Ukrainian officials were there?

TAYLOR: And Ukrainian officials were in that meeting, yes sir.

GOLDMAN: Now, around this same time, in mid-July, did you have any discussions with Ukrainian officials about these investigations?

TAYLOR: I don't recall.

GOLDMAN: Well let me show you a text message that you wrote on July 21 where you wrote it again to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker. And if you could just read what you -- what you wrote here on July 21.

TAYLOR: "Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk's point that President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic reelection politics."

GOLDMAN: And Sasha Danyliuk, I think you just said, is Ambassador Bolton's counterpart, right --

TAYLOR: He's the national security advisor to the -- he was, he's no longer, but was at the time.

GOLDMAN: What did you understand it to mean when -- that Zelensky had concerns about being an instrument in Washington domestic reelection politics?

TAYLOR: Mr. Danyliuk understood that these investigations were pursuant to Mr. Giuliani's request to develop information, to find information about Burisma and the Bidens. This was very well-known in public. Mr. Giuliani had made this point clear in several instances in the beginning -- in -- in the -- in the springtime, and Mr. Danyliuk was aware that that was a problem.

GOLDMAN: And would you agree that because President Zelensky is worried about this, they understood, at least, that there was some pressure for them to pursue these investigations? Is that fair?

TAYLOR: Mr. Danyliuk indicated that President Zelensky certainly understood it, that he did not want to get involved in these type of activities.

[12:10:00] GOLDMAN: Now I'm going to move ahead now to July 25, which is when President Trump and President Zelensky had the phone call. But before we get to the phone call, I want to show both of you a text message, neither of which -- neither of you is on this text message. It is between Ambassador Volker and Andre Yermak, a top aide to President Zelensky. I will read it because neither of you is on it. Ambassador Volker says, "good lunch. Thanks. Heard from White House. Assuming President Z convinces Trump he will investigate/get to the bottom of what happened in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck. See you tomorrow. Kurt."

And this was a half hour -- less than a half hour before the call actually occurred. Now, Ambassador Taylor, was Ambassador Volker with you in Ukraine at this time?

TAYLOR: He was.

GOLDMAN: Did you know that he was prepping President Zelensky for this phone call with President Trump in this way? TAYLOR: Not in this way, Mr. Goldman, but I knew that Ambassador Volker was prepping Ukrainians for the phone call earlier on. That is in -- at a meeting in Toronto on July 2, Mr. -- Ambassador Volker had a conversation with President Zelensky and had indicated in a phone call that he, at that time, was going to talk Mr. Zelensky -- President Zelensky through the -- the steps that need to be taken in order to get to the phone call.

GOLDMAN: Understood. And you testified earlier that the security assistance had already been frozen, to your knowledge, at least by July 18, is that right?

TAYLOR: That's correct.

GOLDMAN: So that was just a week earlier than this.

TAYLOR: That's correct.

GOLDMAN: So, just so we're clear, Ambassador Taylor, before this July 25 call, President Trump had a frozen the security assistance that Ukraine needed and the -- the White House meeting was conditioned on Ukraine initiating this investigation, and that had been relayed to the Ukrainians. Is that an accurate state of play at this time?

TAYLOR: That's an accurate state of play. I at that point had no indication that any discussion of the security assistance being subject to condition -- conditioned on the investigations had taken place.

GOLDMAN: Right, but you understood that the White House meeting was --

TAYLOR: That's correct.

GOLDMAN: All right. Let's move ahead to this July 25 call and -- between the presidents. Now, am I correct that neither of you were on this call. Is that right, Mr. Kent?

KENT: That's correct.

GOLDMAN: And you were neither, as well? So you both read it after it was released publicly at the end of September?

TAYLOR: Yes.

KENT: Yes.

GOLDMAN: I want to spend just a little time reading the transcript, as we've been encouraged to do. And I want to particularly note four excerpts of the transcript, one that relates to the security assistance we've been talking about, another that discusses a favor that President Trump asked of President Zelensky, a third where President Trump asks the Ukrainian president to investigate his political opponent, former Vice President Biden, and then a final one where the Ukrainian president directly links the desired White House visit to the political investigations that President Trump wanted. So let's look at the first excerpt, which is near the beginning of the call, when President Zelensky discusses the military aid that the U.S. provides to Ukraine.

He says," I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically, we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." Now, at the time of this phone call, Ambassador Taylor and -- and Mr. Kent, you -- you both knew that the aid had been frozen, is that right?

TAYLOR: That's correct.

KENT: Yes.

GOLDMAN: And Ambassador Taylor, you testified that President Trump obviously also knew the aid had been frozen as well, since he was responsible for doing that, is that correct?

TAYLOR: That's what I had been told, that's what we heard on that conference call, yes.

GOLDMAN: But to neither of your knowledge, the Ukrainians were not aware of that at that point?

TAYLOR: Not to my knowledge.

KENT: Not to my knowledge.

GOLDMAN: But right after President Zelensky thanks Presidents Trump for his great support in the area of defense, President Trump then says -- and we'll go to the next excerpt -- "I want you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine. They say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it."

[12:15:00] And then at the end of the paragraph, he says, "Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it, if that's possible." Now Mr. Kent, you've testified a little bit about how important this White House meeting was to President Zelensky. How would you expect a new Ukrainian president to interpret a request for a favor from the president of the United States?

KENT: I cannot interpret the mind of President Zelensky other than to say that it was very clear that what they were hoping to get out of this meeting was a date and a confirmation that he could come to Washington.

GOLDMAN: Obviously you can't put yourself in the mind, but if the Ukrainian president, for a country that's so dependent on the United States for -- for all things, including military assistance is requested to do a favor, how do you think Ukrainians would interpret that?

KENT: Well if you go further into the call record as part of this -- and we don't have it on screen, but to the best of my recollection reading it after was released in September 25, President Zelensky went into having whatever your problems were, that was the old team, I've got a new team and we will do whatever is appropriate and be transparent and honest about it. I don't remember the exact words, but he was trying to be in his own words and response -- be responsive to conduct the business of Ukrainian government in a transparent and honest manner.

GOLDMAN: Now, when he talks about this CrowdStrike and the server, what do you understand this to be a reference to?

KENT: To be honest, I had not heard of CrowdStrike until I read this transcript on September 25th.

GOLDMAN: Do you now understand what it relates to?

KENT: I understand it has to do with the story that there's a server with missing emails, I also understand that one of the owners of -- or -- of CrowdStrike is a Russian American. I am not aware of any Ukrainian connection to the company.

GOLDMAN: Now, are you aware that this is all part of a larger allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?

KENT: Yes, that is my understanding.

GOLDMAN: And to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?

KENT: To my knowledge, there is no factual basis, no.

GOLDMAN: And in fact, who did interfere in the 2016 election?

KENT: I think it's amply clear that Russian interference was at the heart of the interference in the 2016 election cycle.

GOLDMAN: Let's move to the third excerpt that I mentioned related to Vice President Biden. And it says -- the other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son -- this is President Trump speaking -- that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it, it's sounds horrible. Now, at the time of this call, Vice President Biden was the front runner for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 election. Mr. Kent, are you familiar as you indicate in your opening statement about these allegations related to Vice President Biden?

KENT: I am.

GOLDMAN: And to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support those allegations?

KENT: None whatsoever.

GOLDMAN: When Vice President Biden acted in Ukraine, did he act in accordance with official U.S. policy?

KENT: He did.

GOLDMAN: Now, let's go to then the last excerpt that I wanted to highlight, which is President Zelensky speaking, and he says, I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and we will work on the investigation. Now, Ambassador Taylor, right after President Zelensky mentions his much desired Washington visit, he says on the other hand, and then says that Ukraine will be very serious about the investigation.

Is this the same link between the White House visit and the investigations that Ambassador Volker had texted to Andriy Yermak just a few minutes before this conversation?

TAYLOR: That's my assumption.

GOLDMAN: Now, just to summarize what we've just read in this July 25th call between the presidents, the Ukrainian president thanked President Trump for security assistance that President Trump had just frozen, to which President Trump responded that he wanted President Zelensky to do him a favor though by investigating the 2016 U.S. election and the Biden's. Then President Zelensky says that he'll pursue these investigations right after he mentions the White House visit, is that your understanding Ambassador Taylor of what we just read?

TAYLOR: Yes.

GOLDMAN: And Mr. Kent, is that yours?

KENT: Yes.

GOLDMAN: I yield back.

[12:20:00] SCHIFF: The majority time has expired. Would you gentlemen like a brief recess? Let's take a five minute recess and then we'll resume with minority questioning.

[12:20:00]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: There as you just heard they'd be taking a five-minute recess. Very shortly it will be the Republicans' turn to ask questions and to be able to ask questions for a 45-minute stretch of the same witnesses. Let's get just quick takes from our group here, John King.

JOHN KING, CNN HOST: I think a very methodical presentation from the two diplomats and then through the questioning of essentially a prosecutor the lead counsel for the Democrats of the timeline and of what the Democrats and the two diplomats say is a foreign policy turned corrupt, taken over by Rudy Giuliani, taken over by the President's Ambassador to the European Union in a way they found not only unusual, unorthodox and outside the lines, but counterproductive to the U.S. National Security interests and ultimately corrupt. That's the case they are making. The American people watching this at home as it's happening, here in Washington both political parties on Twitter, in e-mails, in text messages trying to shape the conversation about this. What the Republican argument is the President wanted to change his foreign policy and the bureaucracy resisted.

So I think the key point in the testimony here is to try - what they're trying to get to is the corrupt part. Can you make the case, take it across the line from the President doing something that was unusual, may be head jarring, maybe some ways obnoxious, but how do you make it corrupt and abuse?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the thing to keep in mind that people at home might not know about both witnesses, but particularly Bill Taylor, is he has worked for Presidents in both parties since Ronald Reagan. He is a career diplomat who made very, very clear in his testimony that he is looking out for American foreign policy and the notion of propping up democracies that need help from the U.S., particularly those who are getting run over by Russia.

And that he was running around with his hair on fire because he thought the President of the United States was undermining that and not just undermining it but doing it for his own political purposes. That is by far the key take-away from somebody who is a very credible witness.

COOPER: And that's to John's point of bringing up what the Republicans are saying, well, look, this was the President just interested in changing foreign policy. This really wasn't a changing foreign policy. This was executing a private policy by the President that would benefit him.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He kept calling it there was a regular policy and there was an irregular policy which was run by Rudy Giuliani and the President. But a couple of things strike me about Ambassador Taylor today.

Number one, we learned something new, that Ambassador Sondland had a direct phone call with the President, which we did not know about before, in which he told people sitting around a dinner table who could actually hear the President bellowing into his cell phone that the President wanted to get this investigations underway, and then he told people after he hung up that the President cares more about the investigations of Biden than he did about anything else. That's number one.

Number two, what I think was so effective about both of these people was that they spoke about the existential threat to Ukraine from the Russians and how important this is for the national security of this country and the entire world. And he said, if we don't push back, that affects the kind of world in which we live.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: That phone call, this was a bombshell. This was new information. Remember, the now notorious allegedly perfect phone call between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine is July 25th. The next day, July 26th, Ambassador Sondland, the Ambassador to the European Union, which Ukraine is not in, which is one of the mysteries here; calls back to the White House and speaks to the President.

It's like in a movie. They're sitting there and other people at the table are hearing the President's voice. And they hear him say, what about the investigations, showing as all this evidence shows that the only thing the President cared about Ukraine - he didn't care if these people were dying. He didn't care about Russian invasion. He wanted these investigations.

COOPER: By the way, what kind of secure devices is the President and Ambassador Sondland using in a restaurant where people can hear?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe like Tik-Tok or something.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Maybe like your cell phone.

COOPER: But putting the top security. But there was a staffer for Taylor who was at this dinner. I am going to bet some money we hear from this staffer in the rest of these hearings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely.

[12:25:00]

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And we should. I want to go back to what Devin Nunes called this whole thing, a low rent Ukrainian sequel. His whole intention today was to frame the conversation and the testimony of these two credible men as being a part of a last ditch effort to relitigate not only the election but now the Mueller probe as well.

But what you saw instead from these two individuals were not people who were fawning to try to become partisan. They weren't answering yes or no when yes or no was really the only response they should have given in some instances given in their testimony. Instead they were very clear to say here's what I heard, here's who I heard it from, giving you the flowchart and the source of information every single time to negate any information that they are somehow here trying to be a part of this sequel.

And you're absolutely right about having witness be called and can they wait to figure out who that person is going to be and why in at that time told if I'm know about. Finally what you saw July 25th was a trap. The Ukrainians did not know the aid had already been held. They did not know in that phone call trying to talk to the U.S. President, that they were being lured into a trap where they were not going to get any money and not going to get any aid, taxpayer dollar aid by the way, not a political slash fund unless they looked into Burisma. That really is the crux of this entire issue.

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Let's keep in mind this is not just any hearing. This is an impeachment hearing. This is the very first time in U.S. history that we've seen a televised re telling of an abuse of power. It didn't happen in the Watergate era, because the House Judiciary Committee's interviews were not public. It didn't happen in the Clinton era because they really didn't have testimony from the witnesses who would have mattered. This is the very first time we've seen this on television. And what is so striking today is the case is not being made by a Democratic prosecutor. It's being made by patriotic professionals who are piecing together the story of an abuse of power.

What I would be watching for at home is the extent to which President Trump used his enormous power as President not to help our security but to benefit himself personally. That's the big question here. As you watch this piece by piece this picture being built by the professionals, is that the picture you're seeing? If it is, it's impeachable.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And not to fight the Russians. Our security but not taking on--

NAFTALI: Look, what I'm saying our as Ambassador Taylor said, our security is in a world that is governed by rule of law where you do not violate the sovereignty of your neighbors, that you respect international covenants. That world is undermined whenever we are not helping countries like the Ukraine which are front-line states.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Three things struck me in opening salvo. Number one the stakes for Sondland next week I mean, they were already high but now they're far higher because of what was said today. His testimony may ultimately be the thing that we remember the most because of what Taylor said.

Number two I'm not hearing any concern from Republicans that this has been compelling enough to motivate massive shifts in public opinion. People are casting - on whether the American people would overly motivated and changed their political opinion of Trump based on what they've heard so far.

And number three - there was one moment by the way where the Democratic Counsel was questioning Taylor and he was looking for a simple yes and Taylor said, well, here's what I can do for you. In that moment, I thought that was probably the correct hearing answer but it wasn't the correct TV answer if you're a Democrat looking for a moment.

COOPER: It speaks well I think to Taylor, though. It's very easy when you're being interviewed and you have an interviewer who's leading you to just go with what they want, but Taylor didn't.

TOOBIN: In fact, I would add another point you know one of the things you are certainly going to hear in the next 45 minutes from the Republicans is that Taylor never had a single conversation with President Trump. That's important.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jeff, I have--

TOOBIN: And that's why I think this July 26th phone call where his aide overhears the President speaking is so important. It's just irrefutable at this point that there was this effort throughout the bureaucracy to thwart the normal approved policy, but the issue here is what was the President's involvement and Taylor doesn't have that.

JENNINGS: Just one more thing I'm hearing from some Republicans is that they feel like some of the foreign policy conversation is being lost Trump versus Obama. We heard a lot about lethal assistance this morning in some of the statements. For two years the Obama Administration would not provide lethal assistance to the Ukrainians. Now the Democrats are complaining about a very brief hold on assistance in this case but for two years our policy was to not provide lethal assistance to the Ukrainians. And the Trump Administration is now doing and both Taylor and Kent have admitted.

(CROSSTALK)

TOOBIN: Does the reason matter, Scott? Doesn't the reason why you don't do it if it's a policy, if it's related to what you think is best for Europe, that's one thing. But if it's just because the--